Predictions on the Republicans in 2008

[Rob]

Most politicians vote strictly in line with their party. For that reason, I'm a fan of more independent partisans.

And maybe I should clarify that it's not necessarily their ideology that bothers me- it's that they vote in lockstep with the party leadership. That means they can take one position on something one week, and then reverse it a week later. I like people with core principles.

[Notre Dame rules!]

I can agree with that.  I don't want my politicians to be sheep either, but I do want to advance an agenda.  If it doesn't work, well... the other party will take over and advance their agenda.

[South Park Republican]

I can agree with that.  I don't want my politicians to be sheep either, but I do want to advance an agenda.  If it doesn't work, well... the other party will take over and advance their agenda.

I totally agree with that statement.  To much campaigning is a lot of style with no real appeal to the issues besides  emotional demagoguery.

[YRABNNRM]

I can agree with that.  I don't want my politicians to be sheep either, but I do want to advance an agenda.  If it doesn't work, well... the other party will take over and advance their agenda.

I totally agree with that statement.  To much campaigning is a lot of style with no real appeal to the issues besides  emotional demagoguery.

Welcome! I'm glad to see more libertarian-republicans like myself joining the forums! I read the website in your profile, I guess I'm a SouthPark Republican too.

[Bob Dole '96]

its either goign to be Bush/Rice or Rice/Bush

Everyone else is pretty irrelevant, in my eyes.

[South Park Republican]

I can agree with that.  I don't want my politicians to be sheep either, but I do want to advance an agenda.  If it doesn't work, well... the other party will take over and advance their agenda.

I totally agree with that statement.  To much campaigning is a lot of style with no real appeal to the issues besides  emotional demagoguery.

Welcome! I'm glad to see more libertarian-republicans like myself joining the forums! I read the website in your profile, I guess I'm a SouthPark Republican too.

As Cartman says kickass!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

I was checking to see if anyone else had picked up on Allen.

He's a former Govenor, a sitting Senator a non-controversial conservative who has lots of friends in the party.

It would be very interesting to see a match-up between Warner (the best available nominee for the Democrats) and Allen.

[TomC]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

I was checking to see if anyone else had picked up on Allen.

He's a former Govenor, a sitting Senator a non-controversial conservative who has lots of friends in the party.

It would be very interesting to see a match-up between Warner (the best available nominee for the Democrats) and Allen.

How is the least experienced politician the best available nominee??

[Notre Dame rules!]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

I was checking to see if anyone else had picked up on Allen.

He's a former Govenor, a sitting Senator a non-controversial conservative who has lots of friends in the party.

It would be very interesting to see a match-up between Warner (the best available nominee for the Democrats) and Allen.

How is the least experienced politician the best available nominee??

Allen, having been both a two term Gov of VA and a sitting Senator, is at least as qualified as current VA Gov Warner.

[TomC]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

I was checking to see if anyone else had picked up on Allen.

He's a former Govenor, a sitting Senator a non-controversial conservative who has lots of friends in the party.

It would be very interesting to see a match-up between Warner (the best available nominee for the Democrats) and Allen.

How is the least experienced politician the best available nominee??

Allen, having been both a two term Gov of VA and a sitting Senator, is at least as qualified as current VA Gov Warner.

Yes, I'm questioning if Warner is qualified. Or "the best available nominee." My problems with Allen aren't because of his qualifications.

[Notre Dame rules!]

What skeletens are in Allen's closet that give you such qualms, unless it's just the (R) by his name? 

I used to live in VA during his first term.   He seemed to be very popular statewide, though as a Tennessean, I didn't involve myself in local VA politics.  I never really knew that much about his policies at the time.

[TomC]

What skeletens are in Allen's closet that give you such qualms, unless it's just the (R) by his name? 

I used to live in VA during his first term.   He seemed to be very popular statewide, though as a Tennessean, I didn't involve myself in local VA politics.  I never really knew that much about his policies at the time.

Not just the "R" but he seems a pretty conservative "R." The "R"s I could vote for are more moderate. I could vote Repub on fiscal issues, but I cannot vote for a social conservative. If the Dems controlled congress, I might be more likely. Repubs I like or might vote for:
Schwartzenegger (assuming he could run), McCain, Giuliani (although I think he has zero scruples, so maybe not), Hagel, Kemp, Snowe or Collins, I respect Lugar, Lamar Alexander has his moments (although I can't recall one as a Pres candidate), Forbes caught my interest the first time, although the 2nd time he did a 180 and sold out to relig right.

My comment was to whomever said Warner would be "best possible nominee" for Dems. I find him underqualified. Allen is qualified, just too conservative for me as far as I can tell.

[Notre Dame rules!]

he only problem, or at least the major problem that I have with moderates, is that they seem to lack 'the vision thing' as Bush 41 used to say.   Clearly conservatives like Dubya, and Reagan before him,  have a vision for where they want to take the country.  Likewise, liberals such as Feingold also have a vision for which direction they would like to take the country.  However, moderates often seem like status quo candidates without a compelling vision at all.  This may not be truly accurate, but perception plays a tremendous role in politics.  That's why both conservatives and liberals vie for the nations affection, while moderates seem to jump on the bandwagen of the philosphy that is winning the day. 

[TomC]

Well, yes, I agree somewhat, although I'm a social liberal but I'm not for all the big spending programs many Dems want. In that respect I consider myself a moderate.

And, to me, representation is about building consensus, getting a majority of people to agree before our government embarks on something new. I much prefer this to ramming through an agenda that only 30% of people agree with, whether it's left or right. And with all the checks and balances in our system, a cautious agenda is usually what we end up with. People used to say the liberals are the gas pedal of the govt and the conservatives are the brakes. Today, depending on the issue, you could switch those labels. Well, okay I want the gas pedal down, but not to the extent that say, Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes. The problem with your saying that moderates lack the vision thing is that we have been led to believe there are really only two visions, one akin to Ted Kennedy's and one akin to, say George Bush's. I refuse to buy into that, that there are only two ways to fall on the political spectrum, as there are hundreds of issues to consider. If I want gay marriage and private social security accounts, everybody is going to say I'm not with their vision,  even though I see that I clearly have a vision of freedom and opportunity. I'm not Reagan or Feingold, or I'm a little of each, so somewhere along the way I have to make a compromise, since so many people have oversimplified what it means to have a vision for the country.

[Notre Dame rules!]

I agree that there are far more people in the middle than on either the left or right, it's just that middle rarely seems to lead us anywhere. 

I see politics as something akin to a sailboat.  The Dems tack to the left, the GOP tacks to the right, but the boat ultimately moves forward.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

I was checking to see if anyone else had picked up on Allen.

He's a former Govenor, a sitting Senator a non-controversial conservative who has lots of friends in the party.

It would be very interesting to see a match-up between Warner (the best available nominee for the Democrats) and Allen.

How is the least experienced politician the best available nominee??

If you look at the other prospective nominees, you will see that they are all either hard left themselves, or obligated to the hard left.

Warner has managed to deal with moderates.

[Ronald Reagan]

Giuliani, McCain, Rice, Gingrich, Owens, Romney, and Pataki are out of the question.  Bush, Frist, Santorum, and Allen would be ok.
On The Issues:
1. Frist or Santorum
2. Bush or Allen
3. McCain or Gingrich
4. Rice, Owens, or Pataki
5. Giuliani or Romney

[Ronald Reagan]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

I was checking to see if anyone else had picked up on Allen.

He's a former Govenor, a sitting Senator a non-controversial conservative who has lots of friends in the party.

It would be very interesting to see a match-up between Warner (the best available nominee for the Democrats) and Allen.

How is the least experienced politician the best available nominee??

If you look at the other prospective nominees, you will see that they are all either hard left themselves, or obligated to the hard left.

Warner has managed to deal with moderates.

Warner is a Moderate Populist Conservative.  He is better than Giuliani and Romney.

[Notre Dame rules!]

McCain votes against energy independence.  What an ass!  Thank God for two liberal Democrats in HI and one in LA.

[Bob Dole '96]

I totally agree.  Jeb is the only candidate right now that stands a chance.  Unless Pawlenty or someone like that emerges and does really well, R's are hosed in 08.

[Bob Dole '96]

I believe Allen may make a run in 2008. I know he's hired some extra people to his staff associated with previous Presidential and other campaigns, which I suppose is the first hint at a run.

(Of course, if Mark Warner somehow decides to run for Senate and beats Allen in 2006, all this Presidential talk is moot).

Allen is a darkhorse.  Not a bad VP choice if Jeb runs. 

It's jeb or lose in 08, in my view.

[Bob Dole '96]

Frist, by the way, would be a disaster.

[TomC]

Frist, by the way, would be a disaster.

No would be about it- the majority leader is a disaster- and one in the making for the pres nominee.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Frist, by the way, would be a disaster.

No would be about it- the majority leader is a disaster- and one in the making for the pres nominee.

As weak as frist is as Majority Leader, and he IS weak, at least he's not Reid.  That's WEAK.  Even Dems should be grateful that Reid isn't Majority Leader.

[Moooooo]

As weak as frist is as Majority Leader, and he IS weak, at least he's not Reid.  That's WEAK.  Even Dems should be grateful that Reid isn't Majority Leader.

Yeah, Im not that fond Sen. Reid.  Personally, I wish Biden was minority leader.  He's a brawler (when he isnt siding with the republicans).